RAJENDRAKUMAR CHAKRAVARTI Vs. CO OPERATIVE BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjitkumar Chakravarti, original accused in Criminal Case No. 2029 of 1982 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, has filed the present application.

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Co-operative Bank of Baroda, has lodged a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, against the present revision applicant and one more person by alleging that they had misappropriated an amount of Rs 67,000/- by dishonestly encashing the cheques in the accounts standing in the name of the present revision applicant. The complainant had examined its Manager by way of leading evidence before charge. Besides, the oral evidence of the Manager of the complainant, the documentary evidence, including the confession statement given by the present revision applicant, was produced and considering the said material, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to pass an order on 21st January, 1984 to frame the charge against the present revision applicant and other accused under Secs. 406, 408, 409 and 420 read with Sec. 114 of IPC. The present revision applicant had challenged the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by preferring a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Baroda, being Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1984. The said Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1984 heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda and by his speaking order passed on 10th June, 1986, he rejected the same and, thereafter, the present application has been filed in this Court.

(3.) It has been rightly urged before me on behalf of both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely, original complainant as well as the State, that the second revision application is not tenable. If the provisions of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure are considered, then it would be quite clear that a party who has gone before the Sessions Judge to challenge the order in revision cannot against come before the High Court in revision to challenge the same order. But Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to this Court to consider the order in order to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I, therefore, proceed to consider this application as an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.